Public Bus Stand Not 'Workplace' Under POSH Act for Incidents Occurring Outside Employment Course

In brief

The question

1. Whether the incident occurring at a public bus stand outside duty hours falls within the definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.

The court held

The Court held that the place of the incident cannot be considered a "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act; therefore, no direction can be issued to Respondent No. 1 to constitute an ICC.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, though liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue her grievances in the pending criminal complaint before the appropriate authority.

01Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Sunita, was an employee of Respondent No. 2 (a manpower agency) deployed at Respondent No. 1 (AIIMS).

¶ 1

On May 27, 2021, at 1:45 PM, the petitioner was allegedly assaulted and sexually harassed by a co-worker, Satpal, at Safdarjung Bus Stand while she was seeking medical treatment for leg pain.

¶ 2

Her duty hours were scheduled to commence at 2:00 PM.

¶ 2

Following the incident, AIIMS directed the removal of both individuals, and Respondent No. 2 subsequently terminated the petitioner’s services.

¶ 3

After withdrawing a civil suit and filing a private criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the petitioner issued a legal notice demanding the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act, which was refused by the respondents.

¶ 3-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the incident occurring at a public bus stand outside duty hours falls within the definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.

¶ 6, 9

ii.2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Respondent No. 1 to constitute an ICC to enquire into the petitioner’s complaint.

¶ 5, 10

03Law Applied

Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), which defines "workplace".

¶ 6

Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, clarifying that a workplace includes any place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment.

¶ 6

The three-pronged test from Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. CAG of India: (i) proximity to the formal workplace, (ii) control exercised by the employer, and (iii) status as an extension of the workplace.

¶ 7

Yogamaya M.G. v. State of Kerala, stating that a location without an employer-employee relationship cannot be treated as a workplace under the Act.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 200

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 2

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The court determined that the Safdarjung Bus Stand did not constitute a "workplace" because the petitioner was on a personal errand (seeking medication) and her duty hours had not yet commenced.

¶ 6

Applying the Saurabh Kumar Mallick test, the court found the bus stand lacked proximity to AIIMS campus, was not under the respondents' control, and could not be considered an extension of the workplace.

¶ 7

The court observed that the incident was a "roadside scuffle" and a personal matter outside the employer's jurisdiction.

¶ 9

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had already invoked criminal remedies under the IPC, and extending the POSH Act to public spaces unconnected to employment would lead to misuse and exceed the legislative intent.

¶ 8-9

05Holding

The Court held that the place of the incident cannot be considered a "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act; therefore, no direction can be issued to Respondent No. 1 to constitute an ICC.

¶ 9-10

The writ petition was dismissed, though liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue her grievances in the pending criminal complaint before the appropriate authority.

¶ 11-12

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF